Interventions:
The intervention was well described and represented current practice in the authors' setting.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The effectiveness data were derived from published sources. The methods of a literature review were not reported, which makes it difficult to determine if the best available evidence was used. Few details of the studies or estimates used in the model were reported in the paper. QALYs were used as one of the measures of benefit, but the details of how the quality weights were derived were not reported.
Costs:
The cost analysis was generally poorly reported; neither the sources of the costs and resources nor the estimates used in the model were reported in the paper. A discount rate of 3.5% was reported, but it was not clear if this rate applied to all the cost analyses or just to one section.
Analysis and results:
The aim of the analysis was to examine the potential cost savings associated with delayed admission to care homes, which was achieved and the full results were presented. The impact of uncertainty in the parameters was not satisfactorily addressed, which makes it difficult to assess whether the results were robust. The authors acknowledged and discussed some limitations of their analysis.
Concluding remarks:
Overall, there were some limitations in the methodology and reporting of the study, so the authors' conclusions should be considered with caution.